New Jupiter Class Launcher

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

j05h

Guest
The root criticism is that NASA was supposed to have realized (as an organization) that rocket development was to expensive. Administrator O'Keefe planned this with the Orbital Space Plane, it would have used existing rockets. <br /><br />Instead, the lesson NASA has learned has been that if one rocket is hard to develop, developing two separate vehicles is only twice as hard. I even dispute some of the claimed interoperability between ARES I and V. The 5-segment SRB is going to end up in at least two fuel grains, one for the crew launcher and one for the HLV. All this to fly fuel that can be launched in arbitrary amounts. The lunar lander itself is only between 20 and 30 tons, easily accomodated by orbital fueling using existing rockets and a tug.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"you would have to say "thus says Jim""<br /><br />Now you have it right<br /><br />"I did a google search, and no one is using it like you did here."<br /><br />Google doesn't work for things behind firewalls. Only sterilized /bland info for the public consumption
 
S

solarspot

Guest
Actually JOSH, I was thinking Ares 1 would cost 2/3 as much as Ares V with 1/6 the payload. Fair bit worse than 1/2 and 1/4 respectively...<br /><br />My point was that even that increased per-mission cost would be lower for the number of planned missions than the cost of developing the Ares V, and NASA does seem insistent that EELV's aren't as safe as Ares 1 will be.<br /><br />Not saying I like the current project constellation, but I think what I outlined above and in my previous post would not be as bad as the current plan.
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
There are a couple trends in LV cost per pound of payload, #1 (strong trend) larger rockets -> lower cost/lb.<br />#2 (moderate trend) NASA rockets - /> higher cost/lb.<br /><br />NASA cannot compete with commercial rockets in the size range that the industry has the capability to do. However, if NASA builds a much bigger rocket than is available commercially the economy of scale of the large rocket brings NASA's cost down again. Even if Ares V costs 1B/launch, and launches only twice per year, the per lb cost is $3636. That's about what EELV prices are right now. If Ares V can fly 4-6 times per year, it will likely be the cheapest per lb rocket in the US. <br /><br />That's just the way the economics work, and I'm glad NASA is going that route. If NASA is going to build a rocket, they should only build one that's a couple generations larger than is commercially available (hopefully Ares 1 will be a stopgap). If it were better and cheaper to use a bunch of little rockets, GEO comsats would be using multi-launch approaches on soyuz instead of the Proton/Zenit. If it won't work for those billion dollar payloads, it probably won't work for NASAs either. <br /><br />This is why I favor a 2 Ares V approach after 2020, retiring the Ares 1. 4 Ares V will be cheaper than 2.2, and MUCH cheaper per pound of useful cargo than a 2.2 launch schedule. Every NASA administrator will be facing this fact, and as (or if for the pessimists) the Ares V develops a reliable reputation it will get more and more attractive. One of them will probably do it.
 
R

ruff_house

Guest
I like Direct architecture because I for one, am tired of watchin Orion being stripped down to it's bare bones to acomidate the vehicle designed to launch it. I was under the impression that if you are making both from scratch, you build the rocket to accomidate the ship, and no the other way around.<br /><br />The only thing that concerned me about Direct was the fact that we then loose the large cargo capacity of the Ares V, but you claim that it can be expanded to lift up to 250 tones at once. Where does it say this and how do they plan to do it. If they have a solid plan for that, I'm completely sold.
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"what is the real show stopper for NASA developing this other then that work has already begun on Ares/Orion?"<br /><br />Work having started on Ares I not a show stopper at this time. The show stopper is that there is no show starter<br /><br />"Is the information packed on that .pdf actually workable?"<br />yes
 
H

holmec

Guest
Good info Josh. Sounds about right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
P

publiusr

Guest
I would think an OSP type vehicle would work better atop Direct than Delta IV. Weight creep would be less an issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS